Clarion Housing Association Limited (202413403)

Decision
Case ID	202413403
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Clarion Housing Association Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Shorthold Tenancy
Date	28 October 2025

Background

At the time of the complaint the resident lived in a 1-bedroom flat in a purpose built block. She has health conditions known to the landlord including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), mental health difficulties, chronic pain and mobility issues.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s move to a new property.
We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

We have found that:
1. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the move.
2. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The timeframes associated with the resident’s move were outside the landlord’s control.
The landlord’s complaint handling was appropriate other than its delayed stage 1 complaint response, which it apologised for and offered compensation.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the £50 offered for its complaint handling as this was the reason for our finding of reasonable redress.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
4 May 2024	The landlord informed the resident that it had approved her management transfer request because she was at serious risk of harm. It advised that it would check for properties and contact her when one became available. It said that it would only make one offer of a suitable property and that the resident’s priority status would be removed if she refused the property.
6 August 2024	The resident complained to the landlord about the length of time she had been on the management transfer list. She detailed the antisocial behaviour (ASB) she had experienced from a number of neighbours and highlighted the ongoing risk of abuse due to the landlord’s failure to move her to another property.
3 September 2024	The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It confirmed it was aware of the urgency associated with the move. It said it had offered the resident 2 properties which she had refused, acknowledging that they were both outside her preferred areas. It noted that it had told the resident that it held low stock in her preferred areas and that she had since added additional areas. It advised it was unable to say when a suitable property would become available, but would update her as soon as one did. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint.
10 September 2024	The resident asked to escalate her complaint. She said the landlord had not considered her disabilities or the fact that she was vulnerable. For these reasons and the ongoing risk she faced, she asked the landlord to prioritise her over others who did not have a disability or were not classed as vulnerable.
30 September 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It confirmed that the delay in progressing the management transfer was due to: A lack of housing stock in the resident’s area of preference. A low number of empty properties becoming available. No available properties meeting the resident’s specific requirements. It said these factors were outside of its control. It advised that it did consider disabilities and vulnerabilities when allocating properties. It highlighted that all residents on the management transfer list were considered at serious risk of harm and in need of an urgent move. It said that the resident would receive first refusal for any ground floor level access properties over others who did not have mobility issues. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident told us that she had moved to a new property on 16 June 2025. She said she wanted the landlord to apologise for the delay in moving her and to pay her compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused.

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s move to a new property
Finding	No maladministration

What we did not investigate

The resident told us this situation had a detrimental impact on her health and wellbeing. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this any further under any of the complaint grounds. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
The resident advised that she felt pressured to accept the new property in April 2025. Further, she said that there were several issues with the property itself, which she had to rectify at her own expense. She asked that we look at these additional points as part of our investigation. However, any new issues (that were raised after the landlord’s final response on 30 September 2024) are beyond the scope of this assessment. This is because landlords need to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and resolve any issues prior to the Ombudsman’s involvement.

What we did investigate

The landlord’s management transfer process is used only when a resident is experiencing ASB or harassment which puts them at serious risk of harm. Due to the resident’s experience of ASB where she lived, the landlord’s approval of the management transfer request was appropriate and in line with its policy.
On 4 May 2024, the landlord informed the resident it had approved her request for a move. It advised that it would check for properties and contact her if one became available. The landlord said that it would only make one offer of suitable accommodation and that the resident’s priority status would be removed if she refused the property. It was important that the landlord provided this information from the outset so that the resident was aware of the strict nature of the process.
When the landlord notified its housing team about the resident’s move, it highlighted the property requirements in relation to her disability and the recommendations of the occupational therapist. These included level step free access, storage for a mobility scooter, and a level access shower or a property suitable for a bathroom adaption. The communication of this information indicates that the landlord was appropriately considering the resident’s disabilities and her additional needs in its search for a suitable property.
On 9 May 2024, the resident asked the landlord to keep in touch about available homes because she was finding the situation difficult. She also asked why only 2 areas were selected and how long the process would take. The landlord explained that the 2 areas she mentioned had the highest concentration of properties, making them the most likely to offer a suitable option. It also confirmed it would keep in regular contact with the resident, even if there were no updates to give. The landlord’s reassurance surrounding its communication was appropriate.
Throughout, the case officer delivered on this commitment. They communicated regularly with the resident and responded to her emails within appropriate timescales and on many occasions the same day.
On 16 May 2024, the resident asked for clarification surrounding how a property would become available and how long the process would take. The landlord responded on 18 and 20 May 2024. It told the resident it was unable to let her know how long the process would take. It advised it had to wait until another resident moved out for a property to become available. The response was relevant and timely.
However, knowing the resident’s requirement for clear communication and request for detail, it would have been helpful for the landlord to have provided a clear written explanation the day it approved the move, outlining what the process entailed. This would have allowed the resident to manage her expectations from the start.
On 29 May 2024, the resident asked the landlord to add 2 areas to her preferred choices. She also asked it to remove an area. This was one of the areas which it had highlighted as most likely to result in a property. The resident added 2 more areas on 5 June 2024 and several more areas on 13 June 2024. However, the same day she also removed the second area the landlord had identified as being most likely to produce a property. Though the resident was entitled to choose which areas she preferred, removing the 2 that the landlord had identified as having most properties would have likely increased the timescales of a suitable property becoming available.
On 18 June 2024, the landlord emailed the resident offering a 1–bedroom bungalow, repeating that management transfers were a one-time offer. The resident told the landlord that she was unhappy with the offer of the bungalow as it was not in an area of her preference. She also advised she felt threatened by continually being told that the transfer process was a one–time offer.
The landlord’s management transfer policy states that it will “try and take account of the resident’s area of preference”. The offer of the property was therefore reasonable. The landlord’s mention of the one-time offer in the same email was misleading, as it had previously advised that the resident would not be penalised for refusing a property that was not in her area of choice. It is therefore understandable that the resident felt as she did.
On 21 June 2024, the resident raised concerns about the way the officer dealing with the case was communicating with her, for which the landlord apologised. On 2 July 2024, it made an offer of another property. It confirmed the property was being offered to her separately and was not a one-time-offer as it was not in an area of her choice. The resident expressed her interest in the property. She also thanked the case officer for their email and acknowledged the tone had changed. This demonstrates that the landlord had listened and adapted its communication style in response to the resident’s feedback.
Further, the resident’s interest in the property – even though it was outside her areas of choice – showed the landlord was right to share properties it thought were suitable.
On 7 July 2024, after investigating the property further, the resident advised she was not accepting the property. This was because it was not in her area of choice, had 3 steps, and an unmanageable garden and hedges. The refusal was understandable reasonable.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s refusal of the property. It confirmed she would not be penalised and said that it was important that she got the next move right. The response was understanding and showed empathy.
The resident added additional areas to her preferred choices on 9 July 2024. She said she was not happy that she had not had an offer of a suitable property 8 months after asking to move. The same day, the landlord told the resident it had updated her areas of preference. It also said that the likelihood of a suitable property was low as it did not hold a lot of stock in small rural villages. The landlord’s communication was appropriate. It was important that it kept the resident aware of her prospects and whether those prospects were impacted by her preferences.
In response to contact from the resident, the landlord provided further updates on 8 and 21 August 2024. It confirmed that it had updated her preferences and that no properties had become available in her areas of choice.
The landlord made an offer of another property on 12 September 2024. However, it subsequently had to withdraw the property as it had been incorrectly advertised as having level access. The resident still expressed an interest but it was deemed unsuitable as it did not meet other criteria. This would have been frustrating for the resident.
In her escalation request, the resident stated that the landlord had not considered her disabilities or vulnerabilities in her request for a move. She also made it aware of the effects that she felt continuing to live in the property had on her physical and mental health.
The landlord demonstrated in its communications that it had considered the resident’s needs in relation to her disabilities. It shared the advice of her occupational therapist when the management transfer was approved. It also updated her needs several times during the timeline of her complaint. On 5 June 2024, the landlord confirmed it had updated the resident’s property requirements surrounding access, gardens and bathing facilities. On 9 July 2024, the resident amended these preferences and the landlord again confirmed it had updated its records to reflect the changes.
Further, in the landlord’s stage 2 response it confirmed it had considered the resident’s disabilities and how she would receive first refusal above those who did not have similar requirements. It also highlighted that all those on the transfer list were considered vulnerable and in need of an urgent move.
We can understand the resident’s frustration with the timescales involved in the process and do not underestimate the impact this had on her. Nonetheless, the landlord was clear from the beginning that it was unsure how long it would take to find a property. It also indicated that it had low availability in several of the resident’s areas of choice. We agree that the factors associated with finding a suitable property were outside of the landlord’s control.
For these reasons we have found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s move to another property.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

The landlord has a 2-stage complaints procedure. It states it will acknowledge all complaints within 5 working days and respond at stage 1 within 10 working days. At stage 2 it will respond within 20 working days. If more time is required, it will communicate this delay to the complainant.
The landlord’s stage 1 response was 4 days outside the target timescale. It apologised for this and offered £50 compensation.
The landlord acknowledged and responded at stage 2 as required. There were no other issues identified with the landlord’s complaint handling. We have therefore made a finding of reasonable redress, as we consider the apology and £50 were sufficient to address the delay at stage 1. This is in line with our remedies guidance.

Learning

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

We found no issues with the landlord’s record keeping during this investigation.

Communication

Though there were a few delays, the landlord usually communicated effectively with the resident, responding swiftly and within internal timeframes. The case officer gave the resident advance notice of leave, which was a positive step given the circumstances of the case. After concerns were raised about email tone, the landlord acknowledged the issue and took steps to put things right.